turetzsr

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp See note at bottom right of Forum pages about "Community Forum Software." The old Forum look was a much older version of the same software but when the SC folks took over the Forum from JT's group, they upgraded.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Aren't you being a bit impatient? <g> If this persists for more than about a week, I'd suggest you contact the SC Deputies at deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net and ask them how to make SC recognize that the offending service is not going to stop the spam.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That seems a reasonable point. I would suggest that you refer this question to the SC Deputies (deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net) who are in a better position to explain the parser results than are we fellow users.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please send an e-mail about this issue to the SC Deputies at address deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp No problem, John! Thanks for taking the time to return here and letting us know the happy outcome. <g>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You may wish to check the SC FAQ entry labeled "Emailed spam Submissions Disappearing? No Confirmation e-mails?"

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not to speak for them but my suspicion is that the SpamCop staff are not looking for ways to tweak the parser other than to make changes necessary to keep up with spammer advances. But you never know, sometimes such recommendations are adopted, often without comment in the SC Forums. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You could inquire directly of the SpamCop staff by writing to deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Actually, no, Steve, I don't, so I'm happy that you mention that there is greater differences than I have so far noticed!

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If I understand correctly, either can be used. I believe that the "Outlook/Eudora" workaround simply removes the need to ensure that there is a blank line between the internet headers and the spam body. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Finding the spam source is SpamCop's principal purpose and that is done entirely through analyzing the headers. If you are concerned about spamvertized links in the spam body, you would want to report to a system that has that as its principal role, such as Knujon or Complainterator, which are discussed in other SpamCop Forum Topics. I did some searching in Yahoo!Mail to try to find a way to show the full text of an e-mail but couldn't find one; you could ask Yahoo Support if it's possible and, if so, how to do that.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Here's one: Ingredients: Water Spaghetti Preparation: Pour water into a pot that will hold at least twice as much water as needed to completely submerge the spaghetti. Bring water to a rapid boil. Add spaghetti. Return to boil. Cook for another eight minutes or until it has reached desired level of softness (taste some to test it). Turn off heat. Drain spaghetti as thoroughly as possible. Add seasoning and spices to taste. Spaghetti sauce, either store-bought or homemade, onion (white, green, sweet, powdered), garlic powder, cheese are popular options. <g>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry, you have directed this to the wrong place; please see the postings above.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Please see Don D'Minion's (SpamCopAdmin) reply in SC Forum Topic "Intersted '3rd party' and source are same."

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Not that I can answer your question but just to check understanding: you are saying that your Exchange server was blocking e-mail because you had configured it to reject e-mails coming from IP addresses on the SCBl but that it was causing rejection of e-mails coming from IP addresses that are not on the SCBl? Not that I'm an expert on how the SCBl works but my understanding was that that isn't possible (although I don't doubt you -- my understanding of either what you did or how using the SCBl works is flawed). I would like to point out that SC recommends not using the SCBl to reject spam but, rather, to filter/ sort it and deliver it to a location other than users' inboxes so that it can be evaluated for "false positives" as you seemed to have experienced. When you "checked SpamCop's blocklist for several of the sending mail servers and found that none of them were on the list," did you check the copy of the SCBl that your Exchange server was using to reject or did you use some other mechanism? I ask because it is possible that the copy your Exchange server was using was out-of-date or somehow corrupted.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp From what I understand, SpamCop expects strict fidelity to e-mail standards, so if yyyy-mmm-dd hh:mm:ss is not in accordance with standards, SC will not interpret it as a date and SC typically will not accommodate requests for exceptions. &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If no better answer gets presented here, you may wish to confirm my understanding with the SC Deputies (deputies[at]admin.spamcop.net).

Hi, jhg, 2. It does seem that there's a relationship between Mailroute and terramar: see Robtex entry for Mailroute.net. 3. Please explain why you believe there to have been a change in SpamCop. I would suspect that the change was on the Mailroute end rather than on the SC end.

Hi, reciprocity, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp It looks more-or-less correct to me, assuming that all the "Received" lines above the "Received: from onhu (unknown [37.9.53.106])" line is internal to your ISP and/ or e-mail provider and/ or services any of your providers use to handle incoming e-mail.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Did you mean that AJR has answered jhg's question, Steve?

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Posting here is unlikely to do any good (not that you'd know that <g>). I'd suggest that you write to "SpamCopAdmin" Don D'Minion at th e-mail address that's in the sig in his post, above 91246[/snapback].

Sample Heading Row 1 Column 1 Row 1 Column 2 Row 2 Column 1 Row 2 Column 2

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Too much white space in the output! <frown>

Hi, jhg, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp When I enter 192.157.244.142 into the SC spam parser form at www.spamcop.net, SC replies: &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp When I click on the link labeled "refresh/show," the following is returned (emphasis -- italics -- by me): &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp When I look up 192.157.244.142 at whois.arin.net, the following appears:

Hi, show&tell, &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Sorry to hear of your problem! &nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp My recommendation to you would be the same as the other Steve's recommendation to the OP: "... write to Don D'Minion (SpamCop Admin) at spamcop[at]spro.net - with the full error message and context and your reporting account details (do not post those here)."

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp If memory serves, there are a number of SC Forum discussions about this (but I'm having trouble finding them with the available search utility and my mediocre search skills <g>). Here are three (happily short) ones: Spamcop complaint goes to the spammewr instead of his hoster, SpamCop wanting to report spam to spammer and reports going to the spammer? 182.255.35.244.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And now we've strayed yet further from tongue-in-cheek but relatively harmless pseudo warnings and adult beverage recipes <g> to handy suggestions for would-be terrorists! <gasp>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp In a similar vein, symptoms like severe abdominal pain might be another problem for which medical investigation may be warranted. In my case, it was due to a relatively harmless kidney stone and, had I known that (and that the pain would subside in about an hour), I would not have bothered having it checked. But the Cat-scan the emergency staff used to find the stone also found kidney cancer. I presume that saved my life.